RE: Another argument for God.
January 20, 2018 at 6:37 pm
(This post was last modified: January 20, 2018 at 6:41 pm by polymath257.)
(January 20, 2018 at 5:44 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:(January 20, 2018 at 5:42 pm)polymath257 Wrote: Sorry, your argument fails starting at #3. it gets much worse after that.
What is the problem with 3? If we have no idea how the brain can generate morals and make goodness binding on us, we don't know it's not an illusion.
What if it's a chaotic process that is just makes us feel good and cooperate but has no reality? And that we all dispute about it because of that?
Let's see a real problem with this premise. Remember people didn't understand chemistry all that like today, so none of that could justify it in the past.
(January 20, 2018 at 5:43 pm)zebo-the-fat Wrote: "5. If we aren't justified in beliefs in morals and goodness, then goodness is an illusion.
6. Goodness is not an illusion."
No, morals and the idea of "goodness" is defined by culture, one culture may think it's good to deny women a vote or ban them from driving, another may think it's good to keep black people as slaves
What people actually CLAIM to believe and think is one thing, what they actually know and believe is another.
Yes if we take everyone on their claims to knowledge, then there is no such thing as knowledge. And if we take everyone claim at what they deem morality then there is no morality.
(January 20, 2018 at 5:44 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Amazing to me the bullshit primates conjure up because they are bored. I think being a primate is fascinating! MK! Get in touch with your apey apeness!
Thanks for showing a sufficient reason why God would not creates us from primates.
On the contrary, we can know about some aspects of morality without knowing where it comes from. Whether or not it is 'chaotic', it is still an aspect of human existence.
As an analogy, we don't have to know exactly how sight works in order to see. In fact, people had faulty ideas about light and sight for thousands of years, but still were able to get reliable information from vision. Knowing how the eyes and brain process visual information isn't required to see.
The same thing happens in morality. We can look around and know what leads to better societies and base our morality off of that, even if we do not know the deeper mechanisms.
(January 20, 2018 at 5:51 pm)Brian37 Wrote:(January 20, 2018 at 5:44 pm)MysticKnight Wrote: What is the problem with 3? If we have no idea how the brain can generate morals and make goodness binding on us, we don't know it's not an illusion.
What if it's a chaotic process that is just makes us feel good and cooperate but has no reality? And that we all dispute about it because of that?
Let's see a real problem with this premise. Remember people didn't understand chemistry all that like today, so none of that could justify it in the past.
No Poly, MK's argument failed from #1.
Argument from complexity is NOT an argument. It isn't when Christians or Jews try to argue complexity either. Dont feed MK, he is in the same boat as Roadrunner or Catholic Lady.
But the brain *is* complex.
I agree that doesn't make it a good argument for the existence of a deity. But the statement in #1 is correct in and of itself.
